Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Starting today at select checkpoints in four airports, TSA will begin testing “TSA Pre✓™,” another key component in our move toward a more risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to security. This limited pilot will help TSA evaluate measures designed to enhance security by placing more focus on pre-screening individuals prior to flying in order to expedite their travel experience.

TSA Pre✓™ allows us to use volunteered information to make risk assessments before the passenger gets to the airport, and enables our officers to focus more attention on those passengers we know the least about. During this pilot, certain frequent fliers from Delta Air Lines and American Airlines, as well as certain members of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Trusted Traveler programs, including Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS who are also flying on Delta or American are eligible. Currently, this is only open to American citizens.

For now, when eligible travelers opt in, TSA Pre✓™ could qualify them for expedited checkpoint screening at select checkpoints at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, Dallas Fort Worth International, and Miami International airports. As with any initiative, TSA is testing this pre-screening concept with a small passenger population at a few airports. Only those passengers who opt in will have the opportunity to participate at this time. If the pilot proves successful, we will explore expanding the program to additional travelers, airports and airlines so that more people can benefit.

For those who will participate in the initial pilot, it is important to note that nothing will ever guarantee that an eligible passenger receives expedited security screening. We have built random and unpredictable factors throughout the aviation security system to guard against terrorists gaming the system and this program is no exception.

We are able to test this concept now partly due to the success of our Secure Flight initiative, which brought watch list matching responsibilities into TSA. TSA Pre✓™ will join other elements of risk-based security currently under way including:

All of these initiatives are designed to improve our security approach while enhancing the passenger’s security experience. We thank U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the airlines, and passengers for their partnership as we work to provide the most effective transportation security in the most efficient way.

If you’re an eligible Global Entry member or frequent flier, we look forward to your feedback after you fly through one of the four participating airports.

For more information on our move toward implementing a more risk-based, intelligence-driven transportation security model, you can read the following blog posts:

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

Isn't management just devising ways to speed up the lines? Once there's a little slack in the lines the local TSAs will revert to vexing the public.

"...it is important to note that nothing will ever guarantee that an eligible passenger receives expedited security screening." After all, it is important to keep up staff levels to ensure funding. All government agencies do this. Bureaucracies exist to support the bureaucracy -- not for some fancied "mission".

I noticed you ignored the most fundamental point-- Just what, exactly, does "expedited screening" mean? Just what is the benefit to the traveler?

Different screening policies? Shoes allowed to stay on, or still off? Laptops allowed to stay in bags, or still out? Jackets still off? Exemption from WBI? Liquids bag allowed to stay in bags, or still out?

Or is it just a special lane, but with the exact same screening policies?

"Surrender your rights to privacy so we don't have to take them from you".

Within the last two weeks I passed through TSA "security" in both St Lose and Ft Myers. In both places, the majority of on-duty [I hesitate to use the term] "officers" were doing nothing. 12 of 21 visible blue-shirts in StL East Terminal, 8 of 13 at Ft Myers Terminal D. The 8 in Ft Myers were talking baseball and the Tampa Bay Rays.

This doesn't include the "explosives detection" "officer" in StL who, like the wooden bird in a cuckoo clock, kept popping out of nowhere, scowling at the throng of passengers in various stages of pre-screening undress, and popping back in again. I don't consider that as doing anything either.

At least ignoring guns and knives on the x-ray conveyor monitor is something.

Reducing the blue-shirt workload by those who feel comfortable living in a police state would only serve to allow more blue-shirts the opportunity to stand around discussing American League playoffs.

For those who will participate in the initial pilot, it is important to note that nothing will ever guarantee that an eligible passenger receives expedited security screening. We have built random and unpredictable factors throughout the aviation security system to guard against terrorists gaming the system and this program is no exception.

...

In other words, there's no point to this other than to collect more personal information and continue ignoring our rights.

The only reason to opt into this would be specifically to try and _avoid_ the ineffective sexual harassment, privacy invasion, thievery, and ignorance of the law that currently goes on at checkpoints, and you're basically following this up with "oh, by the way, you still can't avoid it."

How can this program possibly not prove successful? None of your pre-check early adopters hijack any airplanes? You'll have to run the trial program for several years before you'd expect even one hijacker/bomber.

We are able to test this concept now partly due to the success of our Secure Flight initiative, which brought watch list matching responsibilities into TSA.

Could you explain how the so-called Secure Flight program could be considered a success?

Since there is absolutely no verification that the person who was checked against the watch list is the person passing through the checkpoint, it accomplishes nothing.

What Secure Flight does do is put more people at greater risk of identity theft by compelling them to turn over sensitive personal information to third parties (the airlines) who have a horrible track record at protecting passenger data. I assume that's not what you mean by "success".

If you really wanted a system that made sure people on the watch list didn't make it past the checkpoint, you wouldn't have designed it this way. (And that assumes that the watch lists are more worthwhile than the risks of them being used as political weapons.)

Why don't you guys start by automatically adding people with DOD security clearances or current members of the FBI Infragard program. The fact the TSA and the FBI and the DOD don't talk shows you are clueless.

You have wasted more time and money, as well as surpassed the IRS as the most hated govt agency.

I have nothing to do with the TSA whatsoever, and claim no particular expertise in security. I'm not trying to take a pro- or anti-TSA stance, rather, just to explain how modeling risk works. Caveat lector.

"what benefits are there for a passenger who opts-into this program?"

tl;dr: Not much individually, you'll generally spend less time in security but more at the terminal. If enough people use it, it should, collectively, reduce congestion at the gates, and allow everyone to arrive later and make their flight.

Long answer: Risk-based screening implies the TSA has some sort of statistical model that we don't know anything about. They have some sort of data about you, probably not much more than what's printed on the ticket, and they want to predict the likelihood you are involved (knowingly or unknowingly) in some kind of plot. The way I suspect these government agencies work, a bunch of career bureaucrats stared at a lot of papers really hard and compiled an incomprehensible, acronym-laden report that basically said, "we're not sure, but do this and this."

But let's imagine that it's a bit more methodical, computerized even. (Yeah, that's probably scarier.) It takes what it knows about a particular passenger and tries to determine whether that passenger on that flight is going to, knowingly or unknowingly, be involved in some kind of attack. I can tell you that if you flip a coin, there is a 50/50 chance it comes up heads. But once you have a real-world problem, especially one where an antagonist is trying to be unpredictable, there are too many unknowns, and you can only put upper and lower bounds on the risk. The model can tell the most dangerous a passenger probably is and the least dangerous she probably is.

Without a model and data to feed in, TSA has to act on a uniformly high "most dangerous" level. That's why you get situations like screening aircraft pilots. The idea of the pre-check seems to be that you provide more information so that their model can close the gap between "most dangerous you might be" and "least dangerous you might be," presumably towards the lesser side.

Now, you might argue that this doesn't mean they can expedite security, after all, though you've established that there's a lower chance that one is an attacker, you haven't established that the person isn't. I'm not sure what the TSA's thinking is, but one plausible argument is that they only need to push the risk of a successful attack down to some acceptable margin. After all, you drove to the airport and that's probably an order of magnitude more risky than flying, let alone a terrorist attack. Another is that they're forcing the hijackers to engage in more elaborate preparations to get through security, meaning they need to involve more people, giving the police a better chance of catching them.

If that works, it means that you would, when averaged over a number of visits, spend less time going through security. Now, since you might still have a long delay, this doesn't buy you much because prudence would dictate you come just as early as you did before. But it would relieve congestion in security if many people started using it, so everyone would be able to plan for shorter security lines, and it should save taxpayer / traveller dollars.

This program looks too weird. First, you didn't specify what "expedited sceening" means. Does it mean the TSA officer works faster or less thoroughly?

Second, volunteered information can be wrong (will a terrorist ever say "Yes, I'm going to hijack this plane"?), and as others said here, the trial run should go for years before deciding if it's a good idea or not.

This is Great News. TSA is moving away from the one size fits all mentality and relaxing certain security processes to shift the focus on those that present a greater risk. TSA has done an awesome job to keep us safer since the terrible acts of 9/11. "IMAGINE IF TSA WAS NOT THERE ADN EVERYONE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM THE TICKET COUNTER TO THE AIRCRAFT?" Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis? Everytime I sit in flight, I feel comfortable knowing that the Officers of TSA were there for my safety. Risk based security seems like a good start.

Pre✓allows us to use volunteered information to make risk assessments before the passenger gets to the airport, and enables our officers to focus more attention on those passengers we know the least about.

SO all a terrorist needs to do is volunteer a bunch of BS data, and you'll focus less attention to them?

I asked: "what benefits are there for a passenger who opts-into this program?"

Anonymous responded: tl;dr: Not much individually, you'll generally spend less time in security but more at the terminal. If enough people use it, it should, collectively, reduce congestion at the gates, and allow everyone to arrive later and make their flight.

I'm not interested in the collective benefit of being involved in the program. I'm interested in the personal benefit.

To the point: participation in this program requires that the passenger share more detailed personal information with the federal government. In return, the government pledges that (most of the time) the passenger will receive "expedited screening". What, exactly, is this "expedited screening"?

In order for me to understand whether or not I'd want to participate in this program, if/when it becomes operational, I'd need to know if the benefits I'll receive outweight the loss of privacy. That's a perfectly reasonable tradeoff that I'm willing to make ... if I know what I'm getting in return. But TSA has been remarkably ambiguous about what the benefits for passengers are in participating in this ... making it impossible for me to know whether this is a good thing or not.

«"IMAGINE IF TSA WAS NOT THERE ADN EVERYONE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM THE TICKET COUNTER TO THE AIRCRAFT?" Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis?»

[[Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis?]]

Yes, in a trice.

Cuz, see, the way rational people operate, they base their personal risk assessments on their levels of perceived danger.

Now, sometimes this bites them on the butt as the many auto accidents on wet and snow-covered roads attests. But that's still the way rational people operate: they ignore those who cry wolf repeatedly with nothing to show for it as the alarmist paranoiacs they are.

The way paranoid people operate, on the other hand, is to magnify any POTENTIAL danger into an ACTUAL danger, and treat everyone as if they are a criminal - or in this case, a terrorist - until they prove they aren't.

When tornado sirens go off repeatedly when there aren't tornados ... people ignore it. When terrorism warnings are given with no terrorist in sight ... people ignore it. When the only airflight terrorism in the last decade were two laughably inept attempts to make smoke and cause asthmatics to gag - and were rejoined by what can only be politely described as a grossly foolish overreaction - and which were stopped by PASSENGERS and not the airflight security "experts" in any event ... people ignore it.

The government, in each of these cases, has only itself to blame.

The reality is that EVEN WITH 9-11 in the mix, airflight in the last 20 years has been significantly safer than airflight in the 20 years preceding it. Yet there weren't scads of paranoiacs demanding a mid-80s TSA to grope, irradiate and pester every passenger. 1970-89 had several dozen airflight "events". 1990-2009 ... a fraction of that.

TSA, and their policies, are AT BEST irrelevent to the furtherance of airflight safety. And that's being extremely polite.

.

And since I cannot comment with "Name/URL", I'll sign as if I am anyway:

Anonymous said... This is Great News. TSA is moving away from the one size fits all mentality and relaxing certain security processes to shift the focus on those that present a greater risk. TSA has done an awesome job to keep us safer since the terrible acts of 9/11. "IMAGINE IF TSA WAS NOT THERE ADN EVERYONE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM THE TICKET COUNTER TO THE AIRCRAFT?" Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis? Everytime I sit in flight, I feel comfortable knowing that the Officers of TSA were there for my safety. Risk based security seems like a good start.

October 5, 2011 7:25 AM

..............Oh come on now, TSA has not done a great job. TSA is dysfunctional and this new program offers nothing since a person in the program is still subject to all forms of screening at the whim of a HS drop out screener.

Virtually no one is a threat to commercial aviation so if the choice was only between today's TSA and no security I would gladly take no security. That way I would not be sexually assaulted by TSA screeners for doing nothing more than exercising my Constitutional Right to Travel.

TSA: Thousands Standing Around. For proof of this, allow me to direct your attention to Chicago O'Hare. I have never before seen so many people not doing anything and getting paid for it.

TSA: The Stupid Answer. "I'm sorry Sir, but I don't know what that is." - When shown a TWIC (ISSUED BY THE TSA!) or a CAC (issued by the DOD). I have been told by a TSO 'Document Checker' that my blue passport (the new one with the chip) was a fraudulent document!

@Anon:"Why don't you guys start by automatically adding people with DOD security clearances or current members of the FBI Infragard program. The fact the TSA and the FBI and the DOD don't talk shows you are clueless.

You have wasted more time and money, as well as surpassed the IRS as the most hated govt agency.

You need to be downsized!"

It's not that they don't talk (though that is true to some degree), it's that they don't want people's identities or operations compromised. For those working for the G and traveling under cover, it could completely blow their cover or the op. Some things have very tight lids on them with only few people knowing, lest the whole thing be blown.

Even though many agencies provide clearances, they don't like broadcasting who has them - even within the G.

@Another Anon: ""IMAGINE IF TSA WAS NOT THERE ADN EVERYONE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM THE TICKET COUNTER TO THE AIRCRAFT?" Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis?"

Actually, I would. TSA hasn't done anything to actually improve safety. It only increases the harassment and aggravation factor greatly.

The only reason to opt into this would be specifically to try and _avoid_ the ineffective sexual harassment, privacy invasion, thievery, and ignorance of the law that currently goes on at checkpoints, and you're basically following this up with "oh, by the way, you still can't avoid it."

Anyone complaining about your rights:

Read the aviation security act. The bill that created TSA. You surrendered your rights when you approached document checking. Flying is not a right. Airports are owned and operated by private for-profit airlines. It's just like the "no shoes, no shirt , no service" thing,

"If the pilot proves successful, we will explore expanding the program to additional travelers, airports and airlines so that more people can benefit."

What is your measurement of success? In other words, how will you determine whether or not the program "proves successful"? Is it by the number of people who volunteer to provide you with additional information? Or if you note any reduction in congestion at the checkpoint? Or is it by catching a terrorist attempting to do something deleterious to an airplane?

If you could please articulate your definition of success, it would be appreciated.

anon said:"Within the last two weeks I passed through TSA "security" in both St Lose and Ft Myers. In both places, the majority of on-duty [I hesitate to use the term] "officers" were doing nothing. 12 of 21 visible blue-shirts in StL East Terminal, 8 of 13 at Ft Myers Terminal D. The 8 in Ft Myers were talking baseball and the Tampa Bay Rays.

This doesn't include the "explosives detection" "officer" in StL who, like the wooden bird in a cuckoo clock, kept popping out of nowhere, scowling at the throng of passengers in various stages of pre-screening undress, and popping back in again. I don't consider that as doing anything either.

At least ignoring guns and knives on the x-ray conveyor monitor is something.

Reducing the blue-shirt workload by those who feel comfortable living in a police state would only serve to allow more blue-shirts the opportunity to stand around discussing American League playoffs.

How can that not be a good thing?"

please provide how many people were at the screening areas. its funny how when the line is too long that there arent enuogh tsa people cause you have to stand in line and when there are tsa people standing around there are too many of them. i travel year round and if you notice airports are set up where there are ups and downs when it comes to departures so there are slow periods and busy periods. do a quick check online i see that ft myers does 70% of its passenger loads from jan to apl so obviously there isnt much going on. im curiuos, if they pulled you aside for some random screening would you complain that you were singled out? another case of a no win situation for the tsa

Administrator Pistole, thanks for personally taking time from your busy schedule to update us on your latest effort to improve the "screening experience."

But let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're inviting passengers to volunteer personal information, in exchange for some unspecified possibility of an unknown reduction in screening hassle, subject (as always) to the unknowable whims of the TSOs who happen to be at the checkpoint when they arrive.

This sounds like the sort of deal the TSA has been giving us since it began. Pay a high price in privacy, and get an unknown dubious benefit. That doesn't sound like a very good deal. With rampant data security breaches and identity theft, why should we trust the TSA to safeguard the information we volunteer when they continually demonstrate their inability to do anything consistently?

And while I've got your attention, Administrator Pistole, since you mention the so-called Secure Flight Initiative I'll ask the question I always ask when it's mentioned. Does the Initiative include a mandate for agencies that maintain the watch lists to update each entry on their lists list to include the full legal name, gender, and birth date? If not, how does forcing passengers to provide that information do anything to either enhance security or prevent false positives? I suppose the only possible answer to that is "That's classified. Trust us."

Many express concerns regarding how TSA is managing the safety of the traveling public and use plenty of their valuable time to complain and complain all day long about everything possible. I believe an average of 750,000,000 individuals travel each year on US commercial airliners. I'm almost sure that number is that great because passengers may feel a sense of security and safety while sitting on that aircraft. Let's not be part of the problem, Let's be part of the solution... Provide great ideas to make the process better and safer. Thanks!!! Thank you TSA

Wow, it only took ten years to realize that those of us who travel every week don't present the same risk don't need to be screened at the same level as someone buying a one-way ticket in cash who has never traveled before.I have passed FBI background checks both to carry a handgun and to allow me to work in nuclear power facilities in both Canada and the US, but TSA has yet to find a way to determine that this information could be useful when assessing the threat I present to an aircraft. The lack of intelligence that is put into the process in the US is embarrassing.

Is St Lose, approximately 300 were in line waiting to take off their shoes. 12 of 21 were standing around.In Ft Myers, we were the only passengers there. 9 of 13 were standing around.

Do you feel better now?

[[im curiuos, if they pulled you aside for some random screening would you complain that you were singled out?]]

I would bump and grind, complete with the 70s porn soundtrack "Pssshwacka-wacka-wacka Oooh, baby, you do that so gooooood, mmmmmmmmmmm..." In public. If they're going to humiliate me, I'm going to humiliate them.

And they won't stop me either; they can have EITHER my 4thAM OR my 1stAM. Not both.

[[another case of a no win situation for the tsa]]

Of course it is. You think they should win? Why?

Do you love tyranny that much? They have rules to play by, bucko, and when they don't we get to stand on the sides and heckle and jeer and catcall all we want ... because THAT is one of the rules as well. If you don't like it then maybe you should try someplace that is supposed to be run the way you want the US to be run.

...like Iran, maybe.

.

And since I cannot comment with "Name/URL", I'll sign as if I am anyway:

The last time around, you were told to send in all your personal information to get nothing in return. You still have to undress for the magnetometer, empty your pockets, remove electronics from your carry-on bags, get X-rayed and get felt up by government agents. The only thing "expedited" is that people who didn't surrender their personal data have to get on a different line, so your line would, theoretically, be shorter.

[[Read the aviation security act. The bill that created TSA. You surrendered your rights when you approached document checking.]]

So ... you're saying that legislation trumps the Constitution?

[[Flying is not a right.]]

Then neither is talking on the phone, jabbering on the internet, or using any other apparatus not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Books ... not mentioned. You aren't allowed to read them. Marriage ... not mentioned. You aren't allowed to have one.

Care to continue in your farcical line? Or do you prefer to read the 10thAM and slap yourself on the forehead?

[[Airports are owned and operated by private for-profit airlines. It's just like the "no shoes, no shirt , no service" thing]]

Airlines are indeed for-profit, yes. But your lack of comprehension on how these things work is laughable.

There are dozens of restaurants I could name without blinking an eye that wouldn't care if you wore shirts or shoes, but government health squads would shut them down if they allowed it. It is not their choice; they are required by the government to have certain requirements.

Same with airlines. It is not the airlines' choice to subject every passenger to an officious, rude and non-consitutional procedure that is widely seen as offensive; it is the government's, and the airlines have no choice but to comply.

If the airlines did this themselves ...? there would be no Constitutional problem, but they'd probably lose a LOT of business. But the airlines aren't doing this; the GOVERNMENT is doing it, which means that there IS a constitutional problem.

.

And since I cannot comment with "Name/URL", I'll sign as if I am anyway:

As a member of the Global Entry Trusted Traveler program I found the data submission requirements to be in line with what is publicly available regarding your work and address information. It does require a personal interview and background check, but again stuff we do when we apply for jobs or credit. Some mortage applications can be more rigourous.

I certainly applaud the agency's efforts to move to more relevant and effecient screening methods.

Hmmm. Sounds like a TSA agent getting defensive in the face of fairly accurate criticism.

I haven't been through OHare, but I go through Lambert, Orlando Intl, Tampa Intl, and Ft Myers a few times a year.

Generally speaking, and by my rough count, of the visible agents, approximately 60% are not actively involved in any observable activity.

In StL two weeks ago, of the four at the luggage check, one was handling the luggage and three were watching him. Of the 16 at the security lanes, 7 were monitoring x-ray conveyors, waving people through the magnetometer, checking IDs or ferrying bins back and forth.

Landing in Orlando, which had been closed for two hours due to a storm, there were four TSA frisking ONE passenger - they were the only people in the security checkpoint. ...outgoing flights had been cancelled for two hours...

Ft Myers coming back, 13 agents - 8 were in a cluster discussing baseball and the supervisor in his perch was craning around to participate.

[[Do you even know how many it takes to properly run 2 lanes at a steady pace?]]

How many it takes? or how many TSA uses?

Each lane? 2. One to run the x-ray conveyor, one to control the magnetometer.

Now I've got a bit of an advantage that some people don't. I work for a defense contractor who works closely with our government counterparts. I know how many people it takes US to do a given thing, and I know how many it takes the government to do the same thing. The government frequently uses 50% to 150% more people. ...and time, as well.

[[I'll bet if the lines had over a hour wait time because we had two lanes open due to your suggestion of cutting staffing you'd be complaining about how we need to get more lanes open!]]

At Lambert two weeks ago today, two lanes were open, about 300 people were in line waiting to get through, and it took us about 40 minutes to get through. Twelve total agents were standing around doing pretty much nothing - three of them watching, as I said, the ONE who was being a glorified bellhop.

Hmmm. Sounds like a TSA agent getting defensive in the face of fairly accurate criticism.

I haven't been through OHare, but I go through Lambert, Orlando Intl, Tampa Intl, and Ft Myers a few times a year.

Generally speaking, and by my rough count, of the visible agents, approximately 60% are not actively involved in any observable activity.

In StL two weeks ago, of the four at the luggage check, one was handling the luggage and three were watching him. Of the 16 at the security lanes, 7 were monitoring x-ray conveyors, waving people through the magnetometer, checking IDs or ferrying bins back and forth.

Landing in Orlando, which had been closed for two hours due to a storm, there were four TSA frisking ONE passenger - they were the only people in the security checkpoint. ...outgoing flights had been cancelled for two hours...

Ft Myers coming back, 13 agents - 8 were in a cluster discussing baseball and the supervisor in his perch was craning around to participate.

[[Do you even know how many it takes to properly run 2 lanes at a steady pace?]]

How many it takes? or how many TSA uses?

Each lane? 2. One to run the x-ray conveyor, one to control the magnetometer.

Now I've got a bit of an advantage that some people don't. I work for a defense contractor who works closely with our government counterparts. I know how many people it takes US to do a given thing, and I know how many it takes the government to do the same thing. The government frequently uses 50% to 150% more people. ...and time, as well.

[[I'll bet if the lines had over a hour wait time because we had two lanes open due to your suggestion of cutting staffing you'd be complaining about how we need to get more lanes open!]]

At Lambert two weeks ago today, two lanes were open, about 300 people were in line waiting to get through, and it took us about 40 minutes to get through. Twelve total agents were standing around doing pretty much nothing - three of them watching, as I said, the ONE who was being a glorified bellhop.

rwilymzhttp://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

so the tsa should have 2 agents per security lane. i like this, so when a nice passenger forgets that they have a bad item in their bag the xray tech should stop the line, get the bag, get the passenger through, bring the rest of their stuff in, stop the line, go do the checking, then start the line again. same for the magniotometer person, stop the line check the person, then open the line again. does this checking happen quickly? i have a metal implant and it can take up to 5 min to get checked. so the tsa should do a one on one system. GET REAL! so lets get the tsa people standing around to be busy. right, then they have to deal with people that complain that they are people chosen for extra screening and more videos are made of outraged people because they are being 'picked on'. like any other business employees are staffed based on previous data. if you travel so much then you know that when and where travels show up at the screening areas is completely unpredictable, so there were be ebbs and flows of traffic. you really need to look at the big picture and stop whining. provide some possible solutions to your 'problems'. what company do you work for? im sure that they dont over charge the govt for anything right. everything is done 'by the book' give all of us a break!

Please include the TWIC card as a trusted traveler document. I submitted fingerprints, picture and had a background check. Or enable a no-cost, no-paperwork issuance of the trusted traveler card to TWIC holders. Thank you!

1] follow the Constitution. assume that citizens are NOT terrorists unless you have specific information to the contrary, and leave them alone. If such information exists, then follow the rules and get a warrant.

2] See #1.

[[give all of us a break!]]

I'm trying to, but you don't want to take it. You insist upon being blockheads instead.

TSA Pre-check seems like a reasonable idea. I am a 5M mile frequent flyer on AA and DL.I'm also a member of global entry and as such I am supposed to be automaticallyt opted in. While I fly a lot I don't actually fly thru the supported airports frequently. Last week at ATL I tried to use the TSA pre-check expedite lane. All my info had been Trusted traveler info entered long before I flew (in my profile). However the system would NOT allow me trhu the expedite lane. I called DL, they said everything was in order and could see no reason I didn't get the expedite lane. Today I called TSA and they said that randomly I probably had not been selected.

Well I now after several more flights (from other airports) I still sit at a 100% rejection rate.

It takes about 10,000 hours in the air to accumulate 5 million miles. I can tell you that I am not worried about a terrorist paying for that number of hours to get thru... and they would still need to go thru basic metal detection and baggage xray.

Thought this program was going to be great but now I am really questioning the cost. (a special line and equipment, extra boarding pass scanning equipment. additional agents to determine if you can enter the line and an additional dedicated agent to inspect credentials)

This program looks too weird. First, you didn't specify what "expedited sceening" means. Does it mean the TSA officer works faster or less thoroughly?

Second, volunteered information can be wrong (will a terrorist ever say "Yes, I'm going to hijack this plane"?), and as others said here, the trial run should go for years before deciding if it's a good idea or not.

"... "IMAGINE IF TSA WAS NOT THERE ADN EVERYONE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM THE TICKET COUNTER TO THE AIRCRAFT?" Ask yourself, would you get on that aircraft then without TSA doing what they do for you on a daily basis? "

I would happily get on that aircraft.

If some airline were to find a way around the TSA I would fly them at twice the price.

"...flying is not a right."

No, and probably 80% of the things you do on a daily basis are not *rights*, but I am equally certain if some 'agency' were to try and intervene between you at that thing you would be hopping mad. If you had to file a travel plan every time you wanted to drive somewhere what would you do? Driving around is not a right so you should have no problem with it.

If the airlines were in charge of the TSA I would have no problems with what they do. I could opt out of the airlines that fund the TSA. I can not vote with my wallet because it is the Government that is controlling the TSA and there is no commercial alternative, the TSA tells the airlines you do what we say or you don't fly.

$$$ For Reason, any takers yet (on the $$$ I mean), because you are saying what I have been (and am continuing to say, louder and louder) for a long time. So far, it doesn’t feel like many are hearing us. They had better start.

To the nay-sayers and those suggesting that “flying is not a right”, I understand what you’re saying. Personally in this political climate I am onboard with the whole “X-is-not-a-right” thing, but that position is most commonly known for the stand on public funding of projects. If there were a government program to give economically disadvantaged San Franciscans free airline tickets to visit New York, I’d be right on board with you; Flying is not a right. Neither is taking the bus, for that matter.

No one here is challenging or questioning anyone’s right to fly. What is being called into question is your right to live, do, and travel as you please, which is a fundamental right of yours as an American Citizen. Now, if I want to run James F Airways, and charge you a dollar to use the bathroom, $10 for your favorite seat, and demand that you show me the contents of your purse before you board my airplane, that’s my right, as an independent business owner, and your right to put me out of business, by refusing to do business with me, and instead going to my competitor.

I have every confidence in the airline industry’s ability to do whatever is best for them and their business. So, if they deem it’s in their best interests to spend billions of dollars on TSA-style security measures, then so be it. I’ll be happy to open up James F Airways next Monday, with my first ad campaign of “Reasonable fares for reasonable people” and put them all out of business inside a week. That’s how it’s done in a free country. People had better start learning that, or the only place you’re going to hear about it is in a history lesson.